Did you see it?

[Skinner]

I was listening to NPR this morning, and I was surprised to catch this nugget of news from yesterday, which was completely overshadowed by the announcement about offshore drilling:

The Obama administration has issued http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125423672">tough gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks hitting dealerships in the future.

The Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency say the final rules will require 2016 model-year vehicles to meet fuel efficiency targets of 34.1 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, or the equivalent of 35.5 mpg with credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards.

(snip)

President Barack Obama, previewing the plan Wednesday, said it marked a reversal "after decades in which we have done little to increase auto efficiency." Obama said the standards would "reduce our dependence on oil while helping folks spend a little less at the pump.

For the moment, let's set aside the question of whether the offshore drilling expansion is bad policy. (It is, but it might end up being worth it if we pass comprehensive climate change legislation.) I could not help feeling a little bit of awe at the politics here. Think about it...

President Obama succeeded in increasing gas mileage standards by about 10 mpg. I think we would all agree that's a good thing. But the GOP has been basically silent on the issue, even though they strenuously oppose it.

So, what have the Republicans been doing instead? They've been denouncing President Obama for expanding offshore oil drilling, something Republicans support.

President Obama suckered the GOP into showing that they are so obstructionist they would oppose their own agenda, if only it were proposed by the President. They were all watching one hand, which he was waving around to attract all the attention. Meanwhile, his other hand was doing something else entirely.

"This is the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040101412.html">biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Did you see it?

[cali]

1. yes. it's pretty clear the drilling thing is a feint or

or a gambit or bait or whatever you want to call it.

[Beetwasher]

Red Herring?

:shrug:

[SusanaMontana41]

152. "Rope a dope" strategery

Have always thought that our smart, savvy president was about five moves ahead of the Rethuglicans. Fascinating to watch it all unfold.

Thanks, Skinner!

[pundaint]

194. Yeah, he fooled them by running more of our healthcare through the corporations causing the problem.

He sure fooled those bankers by conning them into false promises about using bailout funds to restore lending while instead restoring their own bonuses
He conned those Gitmo detainees pretty cleverly
Look at the clever way he's ramped up war involvement and spending, now just you watch what happens.

I have no doubt that he's several steps ahead of somebody, but I fear it's not the Republicans.

[vssmith]

196. Very good

[SusanaMontana41]

214. Think we would have had a better deal under President McCain?

You're right. We didn't get everything we wanted. Throw in the towel if you want. Regret your vote, if you want.

Every time that I'm about to give up on President Obama, he surprises me. He's been in office a little more than a year. He has to fix a broken economic system and heal a deeply divided nation. He's trying. At some point, I might get cynical, too, but not yet.

:hi:

[Solomon]

I call it Rope a Nope

lol

[druidity33]

224. +10. nt.

[Enthusiast]

226. Bwahahahaha

[Lost4words]

237. yup, bait and switch

[SusanaMontana41]

259. That's how it feels to me, too

I don't disagree. I just can't be cynical. Not yet.
:hi:

[mkultra]

261. it roped a bunch of dopes here as well

so you know its good.

[DevonRex]

8. I'd say all the things you mentioned. nt

[DevonRex]

54. I think he's calling their bluff, personally.

After all, they aren't using the leases they already have. :shrug:

[kjones]

101. Yeah, that's what i thought. I mean, about the leases. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

118. Herring are quite an oily fish, as I recall

[pundaint]

195. How 'bout we call it an ecological reaming?

[Beetwasher]

2. Shhh!

Look over there!

[DevonRex]

3. I didn't until you posted it. Thank you for the links. This is indeed

important news, from both sources. K&R

[Robb]

4. Sank like a rock in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4327960

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Sorry. I was too busy complaining how he stabbed me in the back.

I guess I should post about my incorruptible conscience now, too.

--d!

[Richardo]

9. !!

:rofl: + :thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

11. Now that was funny.

:P

[Canuckistanian]

141. LOL

That was good.

[Richardo]

6. "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!"

<-----




I did hear that this morning. Good job, Mr. President. :applause: :patriot:

K&R

[G_j]

7. I just read this

very positive step. It's been a long time coming.
:thumbsup:

[Solly Mack]

10. K&R

Thanks! Missed it. That's a good thing.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Yes, I was very pleased. I hope they also narrow exemptions from CAFE standards. nt

[On the Road]

236. That's My Concern, Also

If passenger cars get too small, more people are going to be buying full-sized pickup, SUVs, or whateven is not covered.

I personally think 10MPG is awfully aggressive. The more important thing is to get the exempt gas-guzzlers covered by some reasonable standard.

[Kali]

13. no I didn't

almost didn't see this either - opened my DU homepage right as your post was at the top of the latest! Thanks.

Seems like it is a how he is doing a lot of his work - giving the right plenty of chance to hang themselves and also pissing off enough of the real left to keep them angry and active! I am not so happy with all apparent the corporate ass-kissing, but I can see a lot of possibility still. Politics is NOT often an arena for instant gratification, that is for sure but our culture has become so accustomed to it we expect it every where.

[depakid]

14. Seems to me the economics of petroleum depletion dictates both of these policies

and they're quite consistent with what one would expect in anticipation of rising oil prices.

[DevonRex]

17. So you give kudos to Obama for this, right? Dubya certainly didn't do it

even though "the economics of petroleum depletion" dictated both of these policies then, too.

[depakid]

24. In so far as it's politically and economically what any rational politician would do

Bush Jr. is a very poor yardstick to measure against in most any regard.

On the other hand, Bush I actually might have done exact same thing. So too I have no doubt would Nixon.

[DevonRex]

25. Ah, so you're shrugging it off.

:eyes:

[depakid]

185. Nope- just not jumping up and down on way or another over someone doing their job

and covering their ass politically.

Believe me, there's a LOT more America (and Americans) need to get done than this in order to prepare for the consequences of $5, $7 and $10 per gallon petrol prices.

Just in terms of transportation, European nations are already in a much better situation- and far flung Australians have a continent wide infrastructure in place for LPG (an alternative to gasoline, which we produce a lot of). People can fill up at pretty much any station, and there's a government subsidy in place for LPG conversions.

[Enthusiast]

229. I can't see Bush doing that.

It is a Republican tradition to promote the concept of limitless fossil fuels. Has any GOP legislator ever suggested we increase CAFE standards? I know what Limbaugh has been saying about fossil fuels through the years.

[Subdivisions]

36. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! This is peak oil and climate change

mitigation policy in stealth mode. At least SOMEONE is doing SOMETHING about it. Kudos Mr. President.

[Enthusiast]

228. Good reasonable analysis, depakid. nt

[Winterblues]

15. Wish he could do something about the smoke coming out of truck exhaust

:shrug: Those trucks (semis) cause a good portion of the polution in America

[Ikonoklast]

96. Educate yourself.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/


These new rules have been coming into place for some time now; there are newer 2014 restrictions coming into place in California, which will eventually also be adopted nationwide.

[Winterblues]

100. Doesn't seem to be working very well though does it?

:shrug: Reducing the sulfur was their excuse for raising diesel prices to a dollar more than unleaded gasoline.. a year later diesel prices are now lower than unleaded gasoline by twenty cents...and the smoke still billows from their exhausts..

[JuniperLea]

105. Actually, it has been working...

In CA at least. When I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles County, we had horrible smog alerts several times a month. Visibility was often down to a couple of miles. I can't remember the last time smog was that bad here, and you can see the Hollywood sign from Palos Verdes, some 25 miles away... I grew up in that area and it wasn't until my teens that I knew it was possible to see the Hollywood sign from home!

[Mopar151]

119. Visible smoke is a violation these days

DOT will park your truck for it, or for an oil leak. This not only annoys the public, but it costs the truck owner's money.
Likely culprit is nonexistent maintainence (clogged air filter), or injector pump tampering. A little puff now'n then won't park 'em, but take note of company names, plate #'s, and especially DOT#'s on the door. Then talk to your state DOT.

[freedommachine]

122. Are you an Environmental Narc

Just kidding, Although my car smokes a bit under load and is emissions exempt.

[Mopar151]

155. Nope, just a guy who likes engines

And knows a bunch of truckers. If your gas engine is smokin' it's ill! rebuilding the engine will give you 30-50% more power, better mileage.
Say it's a '66 Mustang. Buy my Grand Marquis with a rotten frame, swap in the 5-liter EFI engine and OD automatic from it into the Mustang (block bolts up same as a 289, Ford Motorsports makes a conversion wiring harness).You'll get 25-28 mpg highway - a little more if you optomize ("blueprint") the engine.
A lowbuck, hot-rodded carburetor engine will get 20+ mpg with some gear ratio changes (an overdrive, or the same thing in effect.

[8 track mind]

198. Thats what i did to my 1972 Chevy Pickup

Swapped out the old carbed V-8 and three speed trans with a 350 TBI and overdrive trans. Pulled the whole assembly from a wrecked van. Vehicle drives awesome, gets waaaaaaaaaaaay better gas mileage than what it used to. Best part is you would never know that it was EFI

[Enthusiast]

230. A real Mopar man

wouldn't be caught dead in a Mustang or Grand Marquis.

[Mopar151]

253. Smile when you say that, partner

:evilgrin: ;-) It's what I race, not a religous affiliation. Trouble is, Chrysler dumped RWD cars for a long time, the new Hemi is still pretty spendy, and takes a good deal more tinkering to swap.

[Enthusiast]

258. I know all that.

I was kiddin' ya.

[freedommachine]

247. My 1982 Mercedes smokes on startup,

but just a bit, once it warms up its fine. Also it has a steel plate on the door sill that says "Emissions Exempt"

[Mopar151]

254. It's pretty healthy, then

If you were to monitor the exhaust for smoke once warmed up, you could get better mileage and performance by keeping the injectior pump (which is the "throttle" on diesels) just below the "smoke point".
My truckin' uncle had a "smoke mirror" on his old Mack for that reason.

[hunter]

173. Where've you been?

I guess I'm old enough to remember when half the diesels belched black smoke and some drivers even seemed to enjoy it.

Ah, the good old days when high sulfur diesel cost 18 cents a gallon, and 100+ octane gasoline full of lead cost 28 cents a gallon.

Whenever I visit smoggy cities in third world nations, the smell and taste of the air brings me right back to the Los Angeles of my childhood.

[tridim]

16. DU basically ignored everything that happened yesterday except the drilling part.

Pretty typical these days, and it drives me up the wall. DU isn't Faux.

Thanks for posting this Skinner. I sincerely hope DU'ers will listen.

[Skinner]

19. DU thrives on controversy.

Which is not surprising; this is a discussion forum, after all.

[DevonRex]

31. Now, if there were only a way to make good news controversial...

:evilgrin:

[Skinner]

92. I'm workin' on it.

;)

[DevonRex]

98. And a mighty fine job you're doing, too,

if this thread is anything to go by. :woohoo: and :yoiks:

[Political Heretic]

167. I'm sorry, I'm confused - does this news somehow change the fact that we are DRILL BABY DRILL?

Oh it doesn't.....

Ok, then I'm having trouble understanding how one piece of unrelated mildly good news has anything to do with with another piece of fucking ridiculous republican policy being adopted by this democratic administration?

Just checking in....

[rhett o rick]

250. Well the Pres still mite have a trick left. If the repubs object strongly enough about the drilling

maybe he will "cave" and abandon the policy in the name of bipartisanship.

[Chemisse]

260. Oh that would be rich. nt

[OneGrassRoot]

223. +1000. :) n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

248. Aren't they already?

This is DU we're talking about. There have been flamewars about how to bread fried turkey. <== NOT MAKING THIS UP

[DevonRex]

256. Well, obviously there's only ONE acceptable way to bread fried turkey.

Corn flakes. :evilgrin:

[unapatriciated]

154. saw it, liked it, but doesn't make me like off shore drilling any better.

I would also like to see a bigger push in green programs.
I'm of the opinion that you need to let your reps know what you disagree with and what you expect from them.
It's called a working democracy.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

199. There are a boat load of trolls on DU.

[Kber]

18. Thanks for posting - it flew under my radar too.

[Union Yes]

20. Finally, Obama is doing away with Bush era SUV exemptions. Hat's off Pres O!

:patriot:

:kick: & rec

[musiclawyer]

21. Edward G Robinson is smiling

"Did you see it! "

[Laughing Mirror]

85. Yes, he is

dear man.

[Greyhound]

120. Why do increased fuel efficiency standards make Little Caesar smile?

I'm missing some connection here.

Thanks.:hi:

[bridgit]

22. I didn't see it on NPR. but knew it would be coming - it isn't a keyed lock its a combination

And new fuel efficiency rules are able to contribute to some of the numbers in that combo

[Soylent Brice]

23. heard it on the radio this morning.

i was and still am very pleased by this news.

[blondeatlast]

26. I notice they are quiet about Hilda Solis (Labor Dept. Sec.) too--she's very pro-union.

as much as the bigwigs despise unions--they know where the rank and file are (in the union, of course).

[Javaman]

27. So maybe Obama is playing 5th dimensional chess or 23 level backgammon or

upside down checkers.

Now, let's hope he keeps this kind of tactic going. :)

[Cirque du So-What]

28. Yes, I saw it

but it got buried under a deluge of indignation over the offshore drilling story, which I bet amounts to nothing. How embarrassing to Big Oil & the repukes will it be when the companies take a pass on offshore drilling because it's just not economically appealing enough?

[Bryn]

29. Too late to R

so here's the kick :kick:

[LeftyMom]

30. So we're supposed to ignore something terrible he did because he did something mildly positive?

Yeah, no. And of course they'll water down the MPG mandate later when nobody's looking, because the car companies will (correctly) complain that they design their models and tool their factories years out, and a 10 mpg increase in less than six years isn't feasible.

[DevonRex]

34. Are we to ignore something great he did because of something that might be

negative?

[tridim]

40. Yep, that's what she's saying.

That's the whole pathetic play-book.

[LeftyMom]

42. Hey, if you guys want to get shined on, go for it.

[Echo In Light]

48. .

:thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

46. Yep. Ignore the positive, assume and magnify the negative. nt

[cali]

38. the drilling dear, is exceedingly unlikely to ever happen.

far more unlikely than that the new mileage standards will be watered down.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. Correct. nt

[Go2Peace]

130. That's irrational. Once land is open it rarely closes and will get used.

[Turborama]

65. "a 10 mpg increase in less than six years isn't feasible."

See post #58: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8067959&mesg_id=8068488

[DevonRex]

70. I loved your post. Thank you so much for that information. nt

[Turborama]

81. You're most welcome

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

I need to do some serious research now. A lot's changed since I last looked into it, no pun intended.

:hi:

[LeftyMom]

93. Those cars aren't sold in the US because they don't meet safety specs.

The 10 mpg increase would also have to be a fleet average. So manufacturers would have to add extremely small cars, AND sell enough of them to skew their averages up that far. Given that American consumers mostly won't buy microcars, that's not going to happen.

[Turborama]

117. Did you even go to the Chrysler link?

These vehicles aren't exactly "microcars": http://www.mpgomatic.com/2008/03/15/35-mpg-why-wait-until-2020

Please provide details of the safety specs on these vehicles which makes them unsaleable in the US.

[LeftyMom]

121. The cars in that link are all diesel. Which almost no US consumer will consider,

because domestic makes made such a hash of them the last time they tried them. Most gas stations don't even sell diesel. Good luck selling enough to skew one's average that far northward when one can't even find a place to get fuel.

Cars sold in overseas markets have to pass US safety testing prior to domestic introduction, which generally involves adding additional airbags and other tweaks to reflect higher US expectations, even versus cars in the European market.

[tammywammy]

131. At least 1/4 of all gas stations sell diesel

I owned a diesel vehicle until last Sept, I never had a hard time finding a station to fill up at. Plus, since you get so much more bang for your buck, you're not looking for a fuel station quite as often. All Valero stations I've ever seen have diesel.

[Turborama]

263. According to this article, in 2007 nearly half of the country's 180,000 fuel stations had diesel

It was written a while ago and I'm not sure of current figures, though: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/24/a_cleaner_diesel_has_carmakers_revved_up_for_us

Good point on the not looking for a fuel station so often, too.

[Turborama]

197. Shame you didn't go to the GD link as well

This article which was posted in there dates back to 2007 but shows that even back then a vast majority of Americans surveyed would "absolutely" consider buying a diesel vehicle.


"Consumers, however, may not want to wait, especially given the fuel-savings diesel offers. The results of a recent survey by Autobytel Inc., an online auto marketplace, showed 72 percent of Americans would "absolutely" consider buying a diesel vehicle. And the marketing and research firm J.D. Power and Associates forecasts that diesels, which currently account for just 3.4 percent of the cars on the road in the United States, will hit 15 percent within eight years. By comparison, J.D. Power projects that by 2011 hybrids will have only about 3 percent of the market, 11 years after the first one came ashore."

Adding those additional tweaks would not necessarily effect efficiency and can be easily done. Not tweaking them to fit the US standards isn't a good enough excuse for not selling those vehicles in the US.

The plain and simple fact is that the technology for much more fuel efficient cars has been around for years and every other industrialized country in the world have much more efficient cars on the road (see graphic below) and this efficiency hasn't taken root in the US simply because it would mean a reduction in the profits of Big Oil.

[Enthusiast]

233. This is the key right here.

"this efficiency hasn't taken root in the US simply because it would mean a reduction in the profits of Big Oil."

I drove an econobox to work in the early 1980s that averaged 36 mpg (measured). It was perfectly fine transportation. But we know what happened to fuel economy from 1980s onward during the Reagan years. That is when the larger vehicle craze became established. More loss of efficiency, even, in the 1990s.

[uponit7771]

221. They also wouldn't consider the seat belt either hunh? This argument against diesel is worn

[Enthusiast]

231. They will buy

microcars as soon as gasoline gets to +$4.00/gallon and stays there.

[Dogtown]

90. I disagree with you.

I get very annoyed with the complexity of political maneuvering, but it's necessary.

The drilling will probably never happen, and if it does it is probably inevitable, anyway. What's of primary importance is swing-voters. Not the self-styled Teabagger "independents", they were always going to vote Republican no matter what happens. True Independents will see, in time, that the GOP is willing to sacrifice their own platform to block the Obama Presidency. The pettiness and covert racism will, perhaps, sway them to our side.

I'm unhappy with how things are progressing. Nothing but war-crimes prosecution will satisfy me, but I know that will not happen. Politics. I'll take what I can get, and Obama is delivering the most he can. I believe that. I know I couldn't do the job. I voted for President Obama and I'm willing to let him do what I can't.

Let's hope (and work) for a 2nd term, where Obama can be more aggressive.

[SkyDaddy7]

181. I love rational honesty...

...And your comment felt like rational honesty to me. Nice to see!

[Dogtown]

252. Thanks, SkyDaddy7

Nice meeting you, too.



:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

32. We also had the insurance industry back down on their "interpretation" re: Kids w/pre-existing cond.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EOKJ0O2

Funny, I haven't seen any threads on that (I know, maybe I should start one.. p'raps later today if I have more time) yet we must have had 20 or so threads previously screeching "SELLOUT!!! SEE!?!?!?!" when the Ins. Industry first floated the idea that they weren't going to have to cover these kids until 2014.... :shrug:

[Echo In Light]

39. One of those threads (you wanted) was created by a shrill bully & was locked after bully was allowed

... to name-call any/all non cheerleaders all day long

[Warren DeMontague]

110. ...and?

Does that have any bearing on the content of the thread or the underlying facts, i.e. that the Insurance Industry BACKED DOWN at the behest of the Obama administration?

No, it doesn't.

And what is "cheerleaders"--- if not name-calling?

You want to complain endlessly about rule breaking while simultaneously breaking the rules?

Odd, really, really odd... how much that behavior reminds me of someone else here. :shrug:

[DevonRex]

112. They sneak in the cheerleader meme whenever possible. And cult of personallity

and true believers, too. But, oh no, they never call names. :crazy:

[Echo In Light]

123. Auh, I see. My one post = "complaining endlessly." Nice reach!

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Define "my".

I'll wait.

[unapatriciated]

164. They have backed down for now, but we still need to fix it.

That can only be done by an amendment and we should not let this slip through the cracks.
If you think they won't try to use it to their advantage than just take a look at what California has been going through since the early 90's.
Do not underestimate the Insurance Industry when it comes to their profits.
They have been at it for a very long time and have a very large legal staff.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Still, the administration stood up to them on this, and they backed right down.

I guess my point is that the individual(s) who pointed to that as evidence that "SEE!!! THIS WAS PLANNED ALL ALONG AS PART OF OBAMA'S GIVEAWAY TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!111111!" in multiple threads, haven't shown up to say "Ooops. Guess I was wrong on that one. Sorry".

I won't hold my breath.

[unapatriciated]

177. most of us were just pointing out problems we saw in the bill.

So they could be addressed and fixed.
When I did this before it was passed, I was accused of all sorts of things along with being called an idiot.
Some of us have dealt with the issue of the Insurance Companies getting around regulations for a long time (1990-2005 for me) and in my case it wasn't a pleasant experience.
I'm glad they stood up but want very much to see all the problems this bill has fixed.

[jeff47]

202. Actually, no

"That can only be done by an amendment"

Not really. First the law is passed. Then HHS issues the regulations they will be applying to the insurance companies, as authorized by the law. HHS has already said they are going to explicitly require health insurance companies to do the right thing.

Now, let's pretend the insurance companies were legally correct. Their recourse is to continue to follow the regulations while suing the government, because it's the regulations that get enforced.

They would have to file a suit saying "We want to kill your children for profit". Not exactly good PR. In addition, the blanket no-preexisting-condition language goes into effect in 2014, and it's rather unlikely that the court case and all the appeals could be completed before then. At best, they could kill children for profit for only 2 years or so.

Nothing would get us single payer faster.

Unfortunately, insurance companies are not that dumb. Despite what that one lawyer said, they aren't going to challenge this for the tiny 2 year increase in profit that would result in their complete destruction.

[The_Commonist]

33. I did see something about that earlier.

It breezed passed my eyes without really registering.
And I certainly didn't put the two together.
Interesting stuff...

[tom_paine]

35. Thank you for this information, Skinner.

:thumbsup:

[high density]

37. Sounds like the Obama change train is rolling down the tracks at full speed

It's ready to flatten anybody in the way.

[Gold Metal Flake]

41. Jujitsu?

[SidDithers]

43. K&R...nt

Sid

[NJmaverick]

44. That's pretty much how the President works

he stakes out the sensible moderate position. This forces the GOP to take extremist positions in their efforts to thwart him.

[pundaint]

126. When dealing with an obviously accelerating downward trajectory, it is neither sensible, nor

moderate to take half-assed measures. We cannot have the necessary and promised Change while not ruffling any of the corporate bad actors who are continuing to cause the problem. Even while proposing a bill that only requires the auto manufacturers to do what they've failed to do for the last 3 decades - produce a product viable in the world marketplace - they still commit tax dollars to them in the form of tax credits.

We are so acclimated to abuse that even just a small corporate giveaway sounds like achievement!

[goclark]

45. Wow! Thanks Skinner

I think I am going to take up Chess again ~ :fistbump:

[Tailormyst]

47. Finally something to cheer about !

[DevonRex]

55. ...

I don't know you very well but your credibility just rose in my eyes. Not that you should care about that, of course, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I know you're opposed to a lot of things about this administration but you also acknowledge when it does something right.

[xultar]

49. Hopefully it will continue to go unseen so it sneaks past the thugs.

[newtothegame]

50. Another intergalactic chess move :) nt

[Cha]

51. Yes, I saw it in the report yesterday..

Thanks for bringing it more to light, Skinner.

[jotsy]

52. No, darn it.

It's easier to see the benefits of duplicity from this angle, still would like to see leadership not to have to go there. When in Rome I guess.

thanx boss. (that's endearment, no derogatory intentions,)

k and r

[EFerrari]

53. It wasn't anywhere that I know of and I had the news on all day.

Great find, Skinner.

[spanone]

56. i didn't see it, but the media doesn't seem too interested in reporting good Obama news

[flvegan]

57. I did not hear about that yesterday, no. But, I'm glad to hear it today.

[Turborama]

58. Chrysler have been making 35 MPG cars on US soil for years but are only selling them abroad

These articles date back to 2008

Details on the Chrysler vehicles: http://www.mpgomatic.com/2008/03/15/35-mpg-why-wait-until-2020">35 MPG: Why Wait Until 2020?

Previous thread on this in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4514660">Chrysler are in fact making 35 MPG cars & SUVs in America, but American citizens can't buy them

Ford have been making 65 MPG cars for years, too.

BusinessWeek article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5">The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

Previous thread on this in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all=389x4509092">"The 65 MPG Ford the U.S. Can't Have"

This graph needs updating, now:



Time to do some research and post an up to date OP.

[amborin]

59. Big Whoop rethugs asked for 35 mpg in 2007

"Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed 27.5 mpg, and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under 8500 pounds must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5 mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck size "footprint."

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in 30 congressional districts in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.<23>

Overall fuel economy for both cars and light trucks in the U.S. market reached its highest level in 1987, when manufacturers managed 26.2 mpg (8.98 L/100 km). The average in 2004 was 24.6 mpg.<22> In that time, vehicles increased in size from an average of 3,220 pounds to 4,066 pounds (1,461 kg to 1,844 kg), in part due to an increase in truck ownership during that time from 28% to 53%.

A number of manufacturers choose to pay CAFE penalties rather than attempt to comply with the regulations. As of model year 2006, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen, Ferrari, Porsche and Maserati failed to meet CAFE requirements.<24>

For the 2008 model year, Mercedes-Benz had the lowest fleet average while Lotus had the highest.<25>"

[amborin]

61. exactly the same as Bush asked for in 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

[DevonRex]

67. You're wrong. From the article:

snip

LaHood and Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020.

snip

Edited to add link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125423672

[amborin]

158. same goal, just asking they be implemented sooner

[DevonRex]

172. The goal of 2020 has been changed to 2016. That's not the same, nt

[kestrel91316]

60. I noticed that. The fuel efficiency standards are REAL change, right now.

The offshore drilling is a potential thing years down the road (which we have at least 10 years to fight and will probably be successful, JMHO).

Sleight of hand, indeed. Good move, Mr. President.

[Tailormyst]

62. Well, real change 6 years from now, but it's a positive move

Also would like to point out this:

"In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in 30 congressional districts in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.<23>"

So it isn't as big as first thought. 4 years sooner is still movement in the right way though.

[amborin]

63. how is it different from Bush's 2007 ruling for 35 mpg?

[Tailormyst]

Happens 4 years earlier, which is good.

[DevonRex]

68. Exactly. nt

[amborin]

180. political expediency this was a 2007 ruling that 's only now being addressed

[amborin]

64. duplicate

[kestrel91316]

74. Can't change CAFE overnight due to the lag time in car development.

I still think it's EXCELLENT.

[Tailormyst]

79. Yup, and as I said its a positive change

I've been so disillusioned with the congress and this administration that it's nice when there is something to cheer about.

[amborin]

159. can certainly be changed faster than 4 yrs; again, rethugs asked for 35mph in 2007

[BrklynLiberal]

66. I did hear that on the news on NPR again this AM.

Maybe they are trying to keep it low key in order to pre-quiet down the objections...

[DainBramaged]

69. And sucker them in he did, with style

Everyone immediately gets all jiggy over the PROPOSED sale of leases. And what do the Pukes do, bitch and moan while President Obama sticks them in the ass with new fuel economy standards.

Let's see them obstruct that...............come on Luntzy show us your stuff.......


SOMEONE other than us has GOT TO GET ON THE TEE VEE and start talking about how the Pukes are destroying this country. The Beckinsteins are LESS THAN ONE FUCKING PERCENT of the population, yet they are controlling the message.


Time to wrench control from them.

[DevonRex]

71. +1

:yourock:

[Mopar151]

150. Folks need to remember that a 35 mpg CAFE is a big deal.

That's the AVERAGE mileage of all the passenger vehicles they sell. No more "truck" exemption for SUV''s. So for every 30 mpg car, you gotta sell a 40 mpg car. For every 20 mpg car - every stinkin one! you gotta sell a 50 MPG car.
These things gotta go on a diet, and cut drag to nuthin'! Wer'e talkin' 1500cc cars with cylinder selection and turbos, weighing under 2000# a the curb. And you know what? Built right, it'll be a BLAST to drive!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

72. From the article - "The rules should add costs to new cars and trucks.

The government said the requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016 but would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage."

The problem there is that new cars are expensive in the first place, and then to add this will make them even more unaffordable. You have to come up with the full price of the car before seeing any savings in regard to the gas.

BTW.. it won't affect me. I can only afford much older used cars.

[DevonRex]

76. The gas savings are triple that of the added cost. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

176. You didn't get my point. Also,

very few buy new cars for cash. How much more will you have to pay in interest in order to "see" the savings?

[DevonRex]

246. You do have a valid point.

On the other hand I've never seen an improvement of this magnitude that was free. We can't just wish capitalism away. In a capitalist system the cost of making changes is always passed to the customer.

But you're right, I did miss that part of your post and for that I apologize. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

73. I remember that we had cars in the 60's /70's that got 42mpg . . . and many cars now do!!

NATIONALIZE THE OIL INDUSTRY

[harun]

75. I hope you are right but there will be no climate bill.

[DevonRex]

82. Look! It's Carnac the Magnificent!!!!

:rofl:

[eppur_se_muova]

77. Nunc id vides, nunc ne vides ... nt

[pundaint]

219. narro quis?

[eppur_se_muova]

245. "Now you see it, now you don't" ... traditionally accompanies prestidigitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseen_University

[Scurrilous]

78. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Hekate]

80. TY, Skinner. I had no idea the Chessplayer-in-Chief had just slipped in another move...

:wow:

Hekate

[Hell Hath No Fury]

83. 34mpg by 2016?? What underachieving horse crap.

Here are the states for American vs. Japanese cars from 2007 -- three years ago. 34 mpg and better is already being done -- to think we can't demand to do much, much better on mpgs by 2016 os just assinine.

American Cars


Make Model Highway City

Chevrolet Aveo         37       27
Ford Focus         37       27
Pontiac Vibe         36       30
Saturn Ion         35       26
Chevrolet Cobalt        34       25
Pontiac G5         34       25
Chrysler Sebring        32       24
Dodge Caliber         32       28
Saturn Vue Hybrid       32       27
Ford Escape Hybrid      31       36

Average Gas Mileage:    34.0    27.5


Japanese Cars



Make
Model Highway City

Toyota Prius         51       60
Honda Civic Hybrid    51       49
Toyota Corolla         41       32
Toyota Yaris         40       34
Toyota Camry Hybrid    38       40
Honda Fit         38       31
Kia Rio         38       29
Hyundai Accent         37       28
Nissan Versa         36       30
Toyota Matrix         36       30
Average Gas Mileage:    40.6    36.3

Japanese Cars – Part 2

Make
Model Highway City

Nissan Sentra         36       29
Hyundai Elantra         36       28
Honda Accord Hybrid   35       28
Mazda 3         35       28
Kia Spectra         35       27
Nissan Altima         35       26
Mitsubishi Lancer       34       27
Hyundai Sonata         34       24
Kia Optima         34       24
Mazda MX-5         30       25

Average Gas Mileage: 34.4    26.6










http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/fuel-efficient-vehicles/american-vs-japanese-fuel-economy-for-2007-cars-2/

[DevonRex]

88. It cut the current goal by FOUR YEARS. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

91. So?

Big whoopty do. 34mpg is the problem -- that and better is already been done right now. The higher mpg goal goal needs to be pushed much harder.

[DevonRex]

95. .

:boring:

[HughMoran]

104. Imagine living a life where nothing was ever good enough

Nah, I can't do it!

[DevonRex]

107. Just another goalpost moved so they don't have to say anything good. nt

[HughMoran]

109. Goalposts will need to be attached to a Top Fuel Dragster soon

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

111. I heard they're in Uzbekistan now. At least the last time anybody

actually saw them. :crazy:

[shellgame26]

216. Seriously...

You gotta wonder about how miserable some people are.

[DainBramaged]

94. Do you know anything about trucks r SUVs??

:eyes:

[jeff47]

203. Your list is off

You could easy say "34mpg? So what. We had a 100mpg mass-market car on the road in 1998." Which we did - take the back seat out of a Geo Metro, and you can get 100mpg.

The CAFE standards are an average for the entire fleet*, not the stand-out cars. Which means better stand-out cars, as well as better overall cars.

Your list only includes the stand-outs. They'll get about 5-10mpg better in order to drag the average up. But in addition to that, the less-fuel-efficient cars will also have to improve.

*yes, there are notable exclusions from CAFE standards.

[Enthusiast]

234. Suzuki should never have quit

manufacturing the Metro/Swift. Amazingly efficient car for at a VERY low price.

[optimator]

84. so what...

the cult of personality is desperate to give credit to their hero while ignoring reality.
This shit is exactly like pro sports and it is grotesque.

[DevonRex]

89. So now Skinner is in the "cult of personality," giving credit to his "hero?"

You just stepped in it big time. :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

87. Yep, I saw it.

Brilliant move. :thumbsup:

[apples and oranges]

97. republicans didn't notice, but neither did democrats

We are just as blind and late to the party as the republicans when it comes to Obama's 3-d chess.

[jgraz]

99. Is it wrong of me to just want some simple, straightforward leadership?

Besides, when have any of Obama's rightward moves been feints?

[JuniperLea]

106. Yes, yes it is wrong...

The world isn't black and white... the many various shades of grey are important.

W was straight forward and look what that got us. I don't want Obama using that MO, ever. I don't want him to "just do it" like Bush II did.

[jgraz]

129. It's not what W got us. It's what W got *them*

By right-wing nutball standards, W was the most successful president in history. Now one thing I know for sure: Congressional Repukes are even bigger cowards than Congressional Dems. If Obama worked the Repubs like Bush worked the Dems, we wouldn't have to play these silly games.

That's assuming he's actually playing games. I still don't buy that.

[JuniperLea]

133. That's my point... what Bush did was wrong...

To wish that Obama would behave in the same manner as Bush is wrong. Way wrong.

I don't get why it's so hard to respect fair play... seems the phrase "elections have consequences" is rough on people on both sides, and I just don't get it. As hard as I try, my mind just won't let me think this about someone allegedly on "our side."

[jgraz]

135. Some of what Bush did was wrong. A lot of what Bush did was *effective*

And a lot of what Obama does is *not* effective. At all.

[JuniperLea]

146. That's still the point...

Bush did things wrongly that were indeed effective for his causes. I'm saying I don't want Obama to stoop to that.

As for what Obama's doing not being effective, it's waaaaaay too soon to tell. The proof is in the pudding, and the milk hasn't even been heated through yet, and the eggs are still in their shells. Unless you have a crystal ball that's better than mine, you haven't a clue as to how all this is going to end up. Nor do I. There are still many changes coming and none of us has the big picture yet.

[jgraz]

147. You seem to be stuck on Bush. OK. Then let's say LBJ.

LBJ was effective at getting liberal programs through the legislature. So far, Obama's proposals have been far from bold and they've been further watered down in Congress. That's called *not being effective*.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see where this is going: like Clinton, Obama will take his predecessor's lurch to the far-right and cement the policies as reasonable and centrist. Then we'll elect someone even worse than W in 2016. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[DevonRex]

108. Yep, just as it's wrong of you to ignore anything good that he does.

This is a complex world and a complex country. They necessitate complex thinking and complex politics.

[jgraz]

127. Wow, someone learned a new word

However, your assertion that I "ignore anything good that he does" is fallacious. It's a complex world and a complex discussion board. It necessitates complex thinking. Or thinking at all.

[DevonRex]

134. Why bless your heart! nt

[jgraz]

136. And someone learned a new phrase.

PM me when you post something original. :boring:

[DevonRex]

137. Why bless your heart again! nt

[jgraz]

138. Keep trying. Someday you'll post like a real grownup.

[DevonRex]

143. Why bless your little heart! nt

[jgraz]

145. Apparently it's very important to you to have the last word.

Go ahead, be my guest. You'll grow out of it once you hit puberty.

[Enthusiast]

235. Get a room! nt

[Hippo_Tron]

220. It's not wrong but it's unrealistic

Jimmy Carter tried the whole straightforward leadership thing and it didn't get him very far. If you want to accomplish anything in Washington you need political gamesmanship.

[jgraz]

244. "I don't want to play the game better, I want to change the way the game is played"

I seem to remember someone saying something like that a while back...

[Hippo_Tron]

251. I hate to break it to you but that was part of the game

[HughMoran]

102. I guess I've been around the block a few times as THAT WAS the big news I absorbed yesterday

I too was suckered into the oil drilling debate on DU. I was wondering why nobody was boasting about this here - though if you think about it, we tend to focus like a laser on the one negative in any legislation, usually missing the forest for the trees. Honestly, the internet is no different than anything else, the big mouths tend to get the most attention - alas...

[Maru Kitteh]

103. Nice :-)

[BeFree]

113. Master politician

And he does it without getting in anybodies face.

Truly a sight to behold. Only America could produce such a person.

Makes me proud of my country.

[blm]

114. Funny how the corpmedia manages to direct the narrative against Dems on nearly every issue...

no matter what.

[pattmarty]

115. I didn't. But, I guess it's all in the way one "looks" at it.

:sarcasm: My opinion, it's Clinton all over again. One step forward, four steps back.

[omega minimo]

116. The offshore drilling "hand" has a big middle finger extended

[Warren DeMontague]

175. The hand has many fingers, doesn't it?

[cornermouse]

124. I"m sorry but I disagree.

Obama should have gone after wind, solar, and the invention of new alternatives with everything he had.

[ecstatic]

128. ALL of those things are in the works but they will all take years to work

(including any benefits from offshore drilling).

[cornermouse]

140. "In the works" is not good enough.

If it "in the works" had been good enough back in the 60s when Kennedy announced he wanted us to go to the moon, we'd probably still be trying to get there today.

[ecstatic]

144. Are you aware of a person who can switch us to solar and wind energy tomorrow?

Didn't think so... :eyes:

[cornermouse]

149. That's why, like JFK, you announce a national initiative.

Incrementalism and baby steps are inefficient and have shown themselves to be unsuccessful in getting you to a goal.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. I agree. It seems they have had a plan all along.

And that plan is rather a good one, and is being fairly well executed.

[Political Heretic]

168. The plan is, do something unbelievably asinine and throw something unrelated but marginally good in

for good measure?

Wow, that's fucking genius! :eyes:

[whatchamacallit]

132. This is good but

is it still a win if, ultimately, you surrender more than you gain?

[tavalon]

139. Good point

I hope this was chess and not triangulation.

[Moochy]

218. Maybe it's Triangle Chess

http://www.chessvariants.com/shape.dir/tc.html

[awoke_in_2003]

142. It has been quite some time

since we have seen the CAFE standards raised, hasn't it? Good on him for getting this through.

[malaise]

151. Rec

Great news

[kristopher]

153. The legislation for increasing CAFE passed in 2007 - it wasn't an accomplishment by Obama

In fact, the authorizing legislation (Energy Independence and Security Act) had established a target of 35mpg combined cars and light trucks by model year 2020.

Obama struck has slipped that target by 10 years.

Edited to amend: I got the date wrong, he didn't slip the target, he advanced it.

[DevonRex]

156. You should try reading the links. Obama decreased the target by FOUR YEARS.

[kristopher]

162. I did read them, but I jumbled the facts.

I knew he had not done anything legislatively, and that was the focus of what I meant to post. He used this past accomplishment for political cover.

Ask yourself this, the law was passed in 2007, why did it take 15 months for his administration to enact a law that was already on the books?

[DevonRex]

165. That doesn't even make sense. nt

[kristopher]

170. Then I feel sorry for you.

You must have a comprehension problem.

The legislation was sitting there when he took office, ignored by Bush.

Obama also did nothing on it for 15 months, he could have issued the same rules within a maximum of 3 months if he wanted to.

He has changed longstanding Democratic policy and opened vast new areas for drilling on public lands.

He used the legislation that was already approved, that SHOULD have ALREADY been implemented, to greenwash his act of collaboration with the oil companies.

This isn't going to get Republican support for energy policy *IF* that policy has any teeth on climate change - period.

[DevonRex]

171. You asked why he hadn't enacted a law that was enacted in 2007.

That made no sense.

[amborin]

161. ^ +10

[Odin2005]

157. 36MPG by 2016? WAY TOO FUCKING SLOW!

[DevonRex]

163. It cuts the current target date by FOUR YEARS, almost in half. nt

[Doctor_J]

160. Hartmann says that this, coupled with the off-shore drilling, completely

shuts up the Repukes on energy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8070362

[Political Heretic]

166. It's like rape with a complimentary fruit basket.

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

169. "let's set aside the question of whether the offshore drilling expansion is bad policy."

No, let's not.

The only one getting rope-a-doped here are liberals.

[maryf]

209. +1 nt

[Lil Missy]

178. Obama plays chess, not checkers.

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

179. It's not what game he plays, its who he plays it for.

[Lil Missy]

184. Only if you're a checkers player.

[Political Heretic]

188. um, no... pretty much either way.

[liberation]

190. Chess player here...

... do you understand that Chess involves, at its most basic level of strategy, the sacrificing of the peons in order to protect the royal pieces? I think those who make the "chess master" analogy know very little about the game, it was known as the game of the nobility for a reason.

Now, if he were playing more egalitarian games like Go or Checkers. Then I'd feel more comfortable with those analogies.


These new proposed MPG standards are good news BTW. I have no problem giving props to Mr. Obama when he does or furthers policies which I agree with (as rare of an occasion as these may be

[swilton]

182. Thirty-five mpg in 2016

is not a 'tough' fuel efficiency standard - My 2004 Prius was getting 48 mpg -

The fuel cumbustion engine is DOA now and will certainly be by 2016 -

We can do better than this!

[cornermouse]

186. Honda Civic does pretty much the same (47 mpg) if I drive

conservatively. When I drive like I usually do I get at least 36 and have for the last 5 years.

[Politicub]

183. I love it - President Obama is kicking in to high gear with progressive initiatives

For the limited drilling push, my immediate reaction was, "how could he?"

But after digging deeper and understanding what the bigger prize will be, it helped with understanding why he allowed "some" drilling. It indeed makes the GOP appear whiny and small when he's doing, in a very controlled way, what they've been whining about for a year.

But it also gives us a chance to get incredibility progressive environmental protection legislation passed.

I often make fun of the "chess game" idea, but sometimes it's true. The Dems making progress is viewed positively. And now that the economy is on the upswing (I believe it is), we're seeing some of the other legislative priorities of the Obama admin. coming to fruition.

[cornermouse]

193. (sigh)

I don't care whether the GOP appears whiny or not. They are not my party and therefore not my concern.

What I care about are results. I don't care if Obama trips and falls all over the room like Dick Van Dyke if he would get some legislation that was recognizable as old-fashioned democratic values. If he had, I'd be cheering him on too but to date he hasn't done that and I'm not going to use chess or Venusian 33 level backgammon as a reason for lack of much needed results.

[mmonk]

187. This is still a bait & switch presidency.

This is a polarized nation. He'll lose more Democratic votes and not gain one mythical "center" vote or Republican vote. The Democratic party after all these victories is on a death watch IMO.

[Skinner]

191. I believe you are wrong.

The Democrats will lose seats in Congress in 2010, but they will retain control of both houses.

Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. And Dems will pick up seats in 2012.

You heard it here first.

[berni_mccoy]

227. I agree with this. There is one chance it might be different...

If the economy improves faster than expected this year, Dems *might* not lose seats. But that is an unlikely outcome.

[leveymg]

189. The Supreme Court will declare the EPA unconstitutional and give gasoline 28th Amendment rights

The Right to be freely burned in SUVs without government interference.

[mojowork_n]

192. Thanks for noticing...

Great analogy, too, the one hand "waving around to attract all the attention, etc."

But it reminded me of one thing about D.U. that I wish could be improved a little bit.

Not sure you'd want to label it, "formatting," or "layout," or a straight-up CONTENT issue.

With video posts on the left of the D.U. page, links to journals and blogs to the right, and all the assorted, diverse, amazing and wonderful guts of the website in the middle, the one thing I sometimes MISS, is straight news. Basic reporting. Announcements of import, meriting a brief few paragraphs.

I know, there are other websites that do that but on busy days, days that I'm a little bit tired and cranky, it would be nice to be able to take the lazy way out and go to some little box in a corner somewhere, and get a summary list of the day's events.

Just a thought. I have no idea what you'd have to do to -- call for volunteers? assign or delegate some editorial responsibility? -- but since I can no longer count on my local, corporate newspaper for much more than sports (they hardly ever lie about sports) and a smattering of slanted local coverage, I think it might be a good idea.

...If you're looking for volunteers, here -- ooh, ooh -- look, my hands up, and with that shoulder hunched up toward the ceiling, the whole arm is sweeping back and forth. Back here at the back of the class, at the end of the post...

...where nobody's going to notice, unless I p.m., or something.

[old mark]

200. We are very quick to complain about things Obama is doing , and

don't always have a full understanding of exactly what that is. I think we underestimate him as much as the republicans do. I may not always agree with what I think he is doing, but he is certainly a lot of fun to watch....


mark

[Juche]

201. I saw this earlier

I think it is great news. New cars will go up in cost $950, but people will save $3000 in fuel costs over the life of the car (most cars last roughly 17 years).

[femrap]

204. Wait a minute.....

why do we still have cars running on petroleum?

Why?

Shouldn't they be on batteries or whatever?

This is so lame.

[Name removed]

240. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

205. Fantastic news. Thanks for posting. nt

[Deadgnome]

206. I'm in agreeance.

There is much more going on here than meet the eye and it looks like a subtle way of stocking up on ammo for November.

[HuckleB]

207. K & R!!!!

[hulka38]

208. Isn't there something wrong with giving credibility to

popular but false right wing ideas? It may be good for Obama politically but it's a short sighted and dangerous game.

[lonestarnot]

210. Mr. President is clever.

:D

[Jamastiene]

211. So, basically we are supposed to ignore the giant stinky mess that is going

to be made of the east coast, because Obama sprayed some air freshener in a bathroom on the west coast.

I don't think it works that way.

[skeptical cynic]

212. I big concession to Big Oil

With globalization and westernization of developing nations, there will never again be cheap oil alongside a healthy economy--fuel efficiency will be necessary, mandated or not. So, Obama can offset a concession to corporate interests with a minor step in the direction of efficiency that would have been driven by market forces anyway.

We need investment in renewable fuels, not increased access to environmentally sensitive areas for Big Oil. Royal Dutch Shell's PR campaign for offshore oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea is moving right along.

My 1976 Datsun B210 averaged about 35 mpg--look how far we've come in 34 years.

[TexasObserver]

213. It's huge.

[speedcat]

215. TOTALLY!

Yep, typical Repug maneouver, as if the world has no memory (does it?!) and it doesn't matter what they really stand for. Evil schmucks.

I wanted to share this too, for all you who want to take a stand and do something about it! Share this group with your friends. :)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113723391973663&ref=share

Cheers from Seattle!

[upi402]

217. Welcome speedcat

:fistbump:

[uponit7771]

222. K&R

[Christa]

225. K & Highly rec'd nt

[freddie mertz]

232. Sorry, but I am not falling for the old triangulation-chess excuse again.

Maybe that is his plan, and if it is, it is monumentally cynical.

Maybe he is just throwing a sop to big oil, or trying to compete with Repub rhetoric.

I really don't care, because one good policy does NOT make a bad policy better.

The very fact that such hoop-jumping is required to defend the decision makes it clear how bad it is.

[axollot]

238. I saw it! Thought it was an awesome move. n/t

[Joanne98]

239. Yep I saw it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

241. Excellent! Thanks didn't see it...but here's an excellent perspective on the drilling:

posted on DU yesterday. Very good articles:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x255669#256329

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x255669

[femrap]

242. Cars operated by

gasoline are so passe. Mandate BATTERIES!

[suffragette]

243. Didn't see this elsewhere

Good to hear

[lunasun]

249. Obama also protected some areas of the U.S. from future off shore drills that Bush

had let expire..... but that and the gas mileage standard change will not be main stream televised much becuz it puts a positive light on the prez and they would not want to encourage that or his voters!! Best to make him the badd off shore driller so his voters are dismayed and pukes who were for that are now of course against it so it all looks like more fruitless work from the administration :crazy:

[Mopar151]

255. I already heard some fools whining about this

They think all the oil is in the ANWR

[mstinamotorcity]

257. Oh our President is definitely the MAN

We know that they don't want "this President " to succeed at anything even if it means they have to take back their own point of view that have been for their own self interest. I can't wait for the Financial Reform fight. They are going to go so crazy that they are going to start eating their own.There are too many people who have gotten financially bankrupt under the administrations of Reagan,Clinton,and the granddaddy of them all Dubya.But whats going to be interesting is when they do their push back,You are getting ready to see the shit hit the fan.Because the tea baggers said that they hate wall street and big banks. And when they see the repugs side with them and say to hell with you,Oh boy!!!!! They are going to start nutting up on Congress.Repugs and Dems alike. They have already been working on strategies to hide their corporate interests in not being for Financial Reform. And when they Lie and the truth comes out that this is all about greed!!!!!There are going to be some mad flannel shirt wearing tea bags on the hat having fools.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[HuckleB]

262. Kick. Kick. Kick.